Mitigating effect of chloride ions on sulfate attack of cement mortars with or without silica fume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed experimental study on the sulfate attack of mortar specimens with or without silica fume exposed to sulfate and sulfate–chloride solutions (with the same concentration of SO42– ions) up to 510 d. The overall aim of the study is to investigate the beneficial effect of chloride ions on sulfate attack. In addition, the role of silica fume and water–binder ratio (w/b) in resisting sulfate attack is also reported. To qualitatively assess the performance of mortar specimens exposed to test solutions, visual examination and compressive strength and expansion tests were carried out. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) techniques were also used to evaluate the products formed by hydration and chemical reaction and the change of porosity for paste samples. Results indicated that the presence of chloride ions in sulfate environments mitigated the deterioration of ordinary Portland cement mortar specimens, especially with a higher w/b, due to sulfate attack. It seems that the mitigating effect of chloride ions on sulfate attack is attributable to the increased solubility of sulfate products in the chloride-bearing sulfate solution, and the chemical binding of the ions to form Friedel’s salt.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".